Forum Post: To the occupy movers.
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 7, 2012, 8:17 p.m. EST by jppt
(82)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
It has been said that ideas are our leaders. Is it time that we picked one to lead for awhile until the desired change is produced. Might need to set up some pole sites to get consensuses on which idea to follow 1st.
???
How about restoring "WE" to the National Manifesto, the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence?
WE are all in this boat together. Or at least that's what we have been told.
I think that we can agree that there are a lot of issues that have been identified. Many people have agreed that having a single leader for the movement gives the critics only one person to discredit or compromise (and most of us have some weakness(es) that can be exploited.) If I am pushing a solution for an identified problem and I get it wrong, critics will jump on my error. The movement says, "That guy probably meant well but he doesn't speak for the movement, so don't get excited."
If I get it right and it gets results, the movement says, "Even though he doesn't speak for all of us, many agree with him and thanks for fixing that problem" We're already broken up geographically, with occupy's everywhere. We have working groups in many places trying to develop tactics and strategies tailors to specific issues e.g. foreclosures
Local groups focusing on single issues have the benefit of being able to work their issues while maintaining the deniability of the movement. I think that is good.
I think the single issue (said several ways) that is universal is that the 1% have rigged the economic and political system for their benefit. And the demand is, "Fix it."
At the full movement level, I don't think it makes sense break that down smaller, other than to agree with others who identify symptoms of the rigged system. Then the movement says, (with many voices), "We have people looking at that. Work with them."
That makes the ideas more important than the people. Sure, leaders will rise to the top, but real leaders don't proclaim their leadership, they just do it, quietly. False leaders will make mistakes and be denied by the movement.
The tactics of the enemy have been posted, People who play into their hands are not our friends.
Article 5 convention is the only authority that is adequate to meet the demands made.
Either occupy does that and embraces enforcement of the Constitution, or it opposes 90% of America and all the military.
I'm all for poles if everyone votes by name
I don't think very much thought has gone into this thread. Precisely who are "we?" What is it that defines "us?" OWS is not a membership organization. It's not really even any kind of organization as that term is normally used. What is the criteria for membership? Who are "we" and how do "we" decide who is in or out? What is the structure of power? What would the leader actually do? What would their title be? Would they be a president, a general secretary, a chair person or what? And if so president, general secretary or chairperson of exactly what?
Right now the only thing resembling organization in OWS are hundreds of locally based GAs and associated working groups, none of which has any formal relationship to any other GA. So what exactly does this proposal mean? As it stands it seems meaningless to me.
We are the 99%. The proposal is pointing a way of coming together around ideas and putting them into action with the intent of creating more of everything for everyone.
The best ideas in the world don't mean shit without an implementation plan. Do you have the foggiest idea how a GA actually functions. Anybody who proposes an idea with no idea how to implement it is not serious but a dilletante.
What do you mean , I got to do all the work, sounds like you have some idea how things work. Can you set up an internet polling site?
What effect, actually, does polling have on the implementation of an idea? None so far as I can see. You could set up a poll and have 99% of the people taking your poll that your idea was the greatest thing since sliced bread and that would not move your idea one inch toward being adopted by a single GA. Polling is absolutely irrelevant when it comes to the implementation of an idea by a GA.
Anybody whose head is full of ideas but who has not s single idea about how to actually get those ideas implemented is an unserious dilletante so far as I am concerned. Before playing in the sandbox of unrealizable ideas why don't you take some time and actually learn how OWS operates. Then when you present an idea it will seriouslyinclude sections on implementation.
Thinking about ideas in the absence of a plan as to how to implement those ideas cannot be considered serious work. An implementation plan has to be part of any serious proposal.
Polling could give us an idea of how many people are behind any one idea. Seems to me that knowing how many people are behind an idea might give us some idea as to how easy or hard change in that area is likely to be possible. As far as you and the big GA is concerned you might want to take a poll and see how many people are into the GA? How about we vote on the web about the changes we want in the world then go to town in bringing them about. Sound like a plan?
One of the most important things about OWS is that it got people off their couches and away from their TVs and computers. It got them in the streets and it got them talking to each other face to face. This forum is a totally inadequate substitute for that.
That kind of direct interaction, discussion and debate is essential to the process of direct democracy. GAs may not be the ideal decision making body for OWS but they are presently the only decision making body that OWS has. Even if there was a poll taking mechanism in place, there would still need to be some kind of implementation mechanism. Right now, however inadequately, GAs do both. They are both deliberative bodies and mechanisms for the implemantation of decisions made. Perhaps other, better, decision making bodies might evolve. They might evolve out of GAs or along side of them, but I have yet to see any indication of anything like that happening.
Get the money out.
See http://www.themultitude.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=47&p=4355&sid=4caca6e8b91948072b81edd5dc28789a#p4355 (I'll start posting back here again now that jart has done such a great job cleaning things up).
What does Gene Sharp think?
If he had a thought in his head, it would die of loneliness.
I strongly disagree. If one leader is brought to the surface, there will be a campaign against this person,in the media. He or she would also be heavily influenced by certain opinions that are preferential to this particular individual.It is of absolute importance that the movement remains leaderless, but instead states the consensus expressed trough the general assembly. In my opinion, the movement should not be there to just empower a new elite. Power for the masses, not for a select group. This mistake would inevitably create the conditions that lead to what the movement is protesting against and wishes to change.
I was talking about one idea not one person.
What consensus have we reached so far?
I don't think we have and it is hard to move forward and bring about change if our focus is to scattered.
I think there's more consensus than OWS is typically given credit for. It is changing the discourse. Rather than focus on more superficial problems, like our public debt (while serious, is only symptomatic of much deeper problems), OWS has refocused the country on those deeply rooted, systemic problems (which are eating away at the core of our democracy), like political corruption, crony capitalism, the influence corporate interests like banks wield over our political system (and how badly this has harmed our country), wealth disparity, etc.
This, only since last fall (and to change the discourse in the most powerful country on earth in a matter of months, is a very respectable beginning, to say the least). It took hippies and civil rights activists years to achieve their goals in the 1960's, and so I think those who expect the world to change in a matter of weeks or months, should slow down on the video games (absurd expectations of instant gratification is a sure sign of attention deficit disorder).
I think it's often the case that the initial response of the establishment to these sort of movements is superficial (and sometimes designed to stall populist movements while they regroup & come up with a strategy). This should be a concern, for instance, in the Arab world (and places like Egypt, where the military is still in control). In the US, our problems are pretty complicated. They're more subtle (and less acute), but no less profound (and in fact the subtle nature of our problems arguably makes them more serious, and harder to solve). Our 1% is the most powerful 1% on earth (or really, it's more like a tiny fraction of the 1% who really runs the show in America, and by extension, is able to project considerable power around the globe).
Yes, 2 thumbs up for the occupy movement.
I believe there are many; but at the lowest levell, there can be said that there is a consensus lying within the name of the movement. We all know that we support the protests because of the sheer greed and blatant disregard for human life that is connected to how the global financial system (and in many cases not just the financial) works.
I agree that there are many ideas that we agree on and think it is time that the movement got more specific about starting the changing process beyond rhetoric.
"I believe there are many; but at the lowest levell"
Yes and hey all deal with the logistic on how to stay on a park as long as possible <_<
Staying in the parks is a symbol of dissatisfaction and a need to come together to make a more just and fair society.
Ouch, did not realise that. In Belgium, this kind of consensus is non-existant (so far),
Yes the right to vote with a vote that counts should be a right that all humans have.
[Removed]